Ten year ONS death rates

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

tbh mate he is making his argument based of official facts and figures.... its a real shame others do not do the same.... the conspiracy nuts are actually those that fly in the face of those facts and figures....and change their stance to suit....one minute you say flu is something that requires 2 lemsips... but now lemsips do not cut it anymore and figures would be....through the roof and your bemused how people are not grasping what you yourself dismissed a few weeks ago....

FFS I don't have to spell it out again

He said why are flu numbers down = Because distancing has reduced the number of people getting infected!

Why would death figures be more if it wasn't for Lockdowns = Death figures would be through the roof with Covid deaths!

Plus quite a few people would get a covid/flue doubler!

I still think flu is feck all, 2 lemsips last time, but it can kill the very weak, but is feck all compared to covid!

You realise that vast majority 80% of covid deaths are in over 70 age group and people with underlying health problems ? And as you point out deaths from flu are because patients are weak and probably got underlying problems so both are as dangerous as each other to same groups of peoples.. so cannot dismiss flu with couple of lemsips..... also 80% of people dont show symptoms of covid but everyone knows they've got flu or similar symptoms...... probably find that more die from flu than actual covid on it's own and not with underlying symptoms as being recorded now.

I don't think there is any comparison, but accept it can kill the old and weak.

There is a vaccination for flu, so that's one reason why fewer people have had it this year, but the main point is covid restrictions have significantly reduced the chance or old people catching flu, especially the no visiting at care homes.

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

So you agree with both mine and Skidem's point on the other thread that Blemmy's talk of 'end of mankind' is massive hyperbole then?

In all seriousness, this is a good example of why people on the other side of the table to you can get frustrated.

Trying to put forward a reasoned argument to counter a position which ranges from Blemmy's view that this is an extinction-level event to your own position, which sounds to me a bit more balanced and takes into account the "potential" strain that the treatment and implementation of therapeutic for non-fatal cases of Covid would have on the NHS will have, is nigh on impossible.

The gulf in reasoning between those two points is just so massive it is almost impossible to hold a reasonable discussion about it, all the while having to have our position constantly, yet subtly undermined by throwaway terms like a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxers. And to be clear it's not that these terms are offensive in any way, but they have subtle yet powerful influence in diminishing the authority of an opposing voice. (in fact the term conspiracy theorist was coined to achieve exactly this effect by the CIA - there's a tin foil hat fact for you )

The arguments for the lockdowns and now the vaccine have been built on shifting sands starting with just two weeks to flatten the curve through to this now ludicrous position of the end of life on Earth as we know it for a virus with a 99.4% survival rate.

Your position here Bluebina, i.e. protecting the NHS is perhaps the most valid argument to be put forward, yet if we pull this down to a question of economics, which at the most fundamental level is what is required to support the NHS, then a very different path could have been taken, to protect the most vulnerable, and funnel funds into specialist care units for those susceptible to severe COVID symptoms. The loss of opportunity costs alone by closing the economy down twice now could have easily provided ample funds for medical coverage and facilities before we even get into the sheer cost of furlough schemes and CBILs.

That is a sensible conversation that can be had, I'm sure you probably have a counterpoint to it, and as with previous discussions, we may be able to find some middle ground, or at least leave a conversation having respected each other's views and taken something new into consideration.

But currently, such actual proper conversations are getting lost in the massive mix of positions coming from those who are pro-vaccine and prepared to casually dismiss the importance of individual autonomy and liberty.

Everyone who is pro-vaccine/anti-liberty (see what I did there) is claiming to be on the same page - as shown by all the mutual backslapping on the other thread - which is fine, I'm all for civility

But you're presenting a united front on the one hand here, talking to those of us who are probably a bit to dim to keep up with all you big brains that have worked out why the vaccine is needed. However, the reality is your all so far apart in what you think the actual clear and present danger is of COVID, it is hard to have such discussions in any meaningful or productive way.

This is intended as more of an observation than a pop at anyone in particular just an observation more than anything else

My stance will always be pro-vaccine, as I have faith in medical professionals.

I am against lockdowns in principle and appreciate measures are needed, but make them as low tiered as possible.

I can't answer the mess of the NHS, I don't think they have handled it well at all, I thought they could have put all covid in the nightingale hospitals and kept the other for standard patients. It looks to me like they could get the hospitals built and equipped but couldn't drum up any more staff to run them.

I think the reports from Italy showing patients dying in corridors caused panic, they could hardly get enough staff in to cover the existing wards let alone extra, there has been an unbelievable amount of sickness and self-isolating.

The first wave was handled terribly with the lack or testing capability and PPI early on.

It's not an apocalyptic situation, but any comparisons to a bad flu year are an absolute joke, and if we let rip even now the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope.

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

No I think you probably had a lemsip, you can't compare flu to Covid, yes it's nasty and I would choose to avoid it, but it kills less, and doesn't spread anywhere near as quickly!

Once covid is cracked they will carry on letting us catch flu while vaccinating the over 65's, because it's not in the same league.

The influenza pandemic of 1967 being referred to above killed a million people worldwide which was 0.03% of the current population.

The Covid19 pandemic of 2020 has killed 1.4 million people worldwide which is 0.02% of the current population.

The two pandemics being referenced are directly comparable, although given they lie some 60 years apart other factors are admittedly at play (not least far easier transmission vectors of 2020 due to globalisation pre-March and mitigating factors of lockdowns post-March and the same both after the end of 1st lockdown and introduction of 2nd lockdown).

I would guess these likely balance out certainly enough to not sway figures hugely in one direction or the other, but it is admittedly a guess.

Therefore, i'd argue that a comparison between an influenza pandemic and a coronavirus pandemic is 100% valid.

So in the name of fairness, if we're going to conflate a flu pandemic with seasonal flu on the basis they are both influenza viruses, as you've done in the above, then to be consistent we have to conflate COVID19 with the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

If this is the case (and I may be overlooking something here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) and we apply the logic consistently, we can only have arrive at two conclusions based on the above:

a) the 1967 influenza pandemic, like the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, was an exceptionally dangerous pandemic. Yet without any of the drastic measures of 2020 we survived and the pandemic subsided naturally.

b) The 2020 coronavirus pandemic, like the 1967 influenza pandemic is actually not as big a threat to the overwhelming majority of the global population as it is being perceived to be.


One of those has to be correct surely, whichever way we look at it?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

So you agree with both mine and Skidem's point on the other thread that Blemmy's talk of 'end of mankind' is massive hyperbole then?

In all seriousness, this is a good example of why people on the other side of the table to you can get frustrated.

Trying to put forward a reasoned argument to counter a position which ranges from Blemmy's view that this is an extinction-level event to your own position, which sounds to me a bit more balanced and takes into account the "potential" strain that the treatment and implementation of therapeutic for non-fatal cases of Covid would have on the NHS will have, is nigh on impossible.

The gulf in reasoning between those two points is just so massive it is almost impossible to hold a reasonable discussion about it, all the while having to have our position constantly, yet subtly undermined by throwaway terms like a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxers. And to be clear it's not that these terms are offensive in any way, but they have subtle yet powerful influence in diminishing the authority of an opposing voice. (in fact the term conspiracy theorist was coined to achieve exactly this effect by the CIA - there's a tin foil hat fact for you )

The arguments for the lockdowns and now the vaccine have been built on shifting sands starting with just two weeks to flatten the curve through to this now ludicrous position of the end of life on Earth as we know it for a virus with a 99.4% survival rate.

Your position here Bluebina, i.e. protecting the NHS is perhaps the most valid argument to be put forward, yet if we pull this down to a question of economics, which at the most fundamental level is what is required to support the NHS, then a very different path could have been taken, to protect the most vulnerable, and funnel funds into specialist care units for those susceptible to severe COVID symptoms. The loss of opportunity costs alone by closing the economy down twice now could have easily provided ample funds for medical coverage and facilities before we even get into the sheer cost of furlough schemes and CBILs.

That is a sensible conversation that can be had, I'm sure you probably have a counterpoint to it, and as with previous discussions, we may be able to find some middle ground, or at least leave a conversation having respected each other's views and taken something new into consideration.

But currently, such actual proper conversations are getting lost in the massive mix of positions coming from those who are pro-vaccine and prepared to casually dismiss the importance of individual autonomy and liberty.

Everyone who is pro-vaccine/anti-liberty (see what I did there) is claiming to be on the same page - as shown by all the mutual backslapping on the other thread - which is fine, I'm all for civility

But you're presenting a united front on the one hand here, talking to those of us who are probably a bit to dim to keep up with all you big brains that have worked out why the vaccine is needed. However, the reality is your all so far apart in what you think the actual clear and present danger is of COVID, it is hard to have such discussions in any meaningful or productive way.

This is intended as more of an observation than a pop at anyone in particular just an observation more than anything else

My stance will always be pro-vaccine, as I have faith in medical professionals.

I am against lockdowns in principle and appreciate measures are needed, but make them as low tiered as possible.

I can't answer the mess of the NHS, I don't think they have handled it well at all, I thought they could have put all covid in the nightingale hospitals and kept the other for standard patients. It looks to me like they could get the hospitals built and equipped but couldn't drum up any more staff to run them.

I think the reports from Italy showing patients dying in corridors caused panic, they could hardly get enough staff in to cover the existing wards let alone extra, there has been an unbelievable amount of sickness and self-isolating.

The first wave was handled terribly with the lack or testing capability and PPI early on.

It's not an apocalyptic situation, but any comparisons to a bad flu year are an absolute joke, and if we let rip even now the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope.

I appreciate the way you respond to posts, directly, it shows a considered approach.

The point on the hospitals - i seem to recall the NHS were turning away volunteers (myself included) and it was by a magnitude of something ridiculous by a hundred thousand too many volunteers. Training would have been an issue but not insurmountable if the need was there.

I agree people got spooked early in, the media has a lot of blame on its shoulders for pushing out mass hyperbole.

As per the point above, comparing it to a bad flu season fair enough I could understand your position, but most are comparing it to an influenza pandemic these are two different things - but I covered the in a previous post (which I wrote while you were posting your own reply by the look of it)

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

So you agree with both mine and Skidem's point on the other thread that Blemmy's talk of 'end of mankind' is massive hyperbole then?

In all seriousness, this is a good example of why people on the other side of the table to you can get frustrated.

Trying to put forward a reasoned argument to counter a position which ranges from Blemmy's view that this is an extinction-level event to your own position, which sounds to me a bit more balanced and takes into account the "potential" strain that the treatment and implementation of therapeutic for non-fatal cases of Covid would have on the NHS will have, is nigh on impossible.

The gulf in reasoning between those two points is just so massive it is almost impossible to hold a reasonable discussion about it, all the while having to have our position constantly, yet subtly undermined by throwaway terms like a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxers. And to be clear it's not that these terms are offensive in any way, but they have subtle yet powerful influence in diminishing the authority of an opposing voice. (in fact the term conspiracy theorist was coined to achieve exactly this effect by the CIA - there's a tin foil hat fact for you )

The arguments for the lockdowns and now the vaccine have been built on shifting sands starting with just two weeks to flatten the curve through to this now ludicrous position of the end of life on Earth as we know it for a virus with a 99.4% survival rate.

Your position here Bluebina, i.e. protecting the NHS is perhaps the most valid argument to be put forward, yet if we pull this down to a question of economics, which at the most fundamental level is what is required to support the NHS, then a very different path could have been taken, to protect the most vulnerable, and funnel funds into specialist care units for those susceptible to severe COVID symptoms. The loss of opportunity costs alone by closing the economy down twice now could have easily provided ample funds for medical coverage and facilities before we even get into the sheer cost of furlough schemes and CBILs.

That is a sensible conversation that can be had, I'm sure you probably have a counterpoint to it, and as with previous discussions, we may be able to find some middle ground, or at least leave a conversation having respected each other's views and taken something new into consideration.

But currently, such actual proper conversations are getting lost in the massive mix of positions coming from those who are pro-vaccine and prepared to casually dismiss the importance of individual autonomy and liberty.

Everyone who is pro-vaccine/anti-liberty (see what I did there) is claiming to be on the same page - as shown by all the mutual backslapping on the other thread - which is fine, I'm all for civility

But you're presenting a united front on the one hand here, talking to those of us who are probably a bit to dim to keep up with all you big brains that have worked out why the vaccine is needed. However, the reality is your all so far apart in what you think the actual clear and present danger is of COVID, it is hard to have such discussions in any meaningful or productive way.

This is intended as more of an observation than a pop at anyone in particular just an observation more than anything else

My stance will always be pro-vaccine, as I have faith in medical professionals.

I am against lockdowns in principle and appreciate measures are needed, but make them as low tiered as possible.

I can't answer the mess of the NHS, I don't think they have handled it well at all, I thought they could have put all covid in the nightingale hospitals and kept the other for standard patients. It looks to me like they could get the hospitals built and equipped but couldn't drum up any more staff to run them.

I think the reports from Italy showing patients dying in corridors caused panic, they could hardly get enough staff in to cover the existing wards let alone extra, there has been an unbelievable amount of sickness and self-isolating.

The first wave was handled terribly with the lack or testing capability and PPI early on.

It's not an apocalyptic situation, but any comparisons to a bad flu year are an absolute joke, and if we let rip even now the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope.

I appreciate the way you respond to posts, directly, it shows a considered approach.

The point on the hospitals - i seem to recall the NHS were turning away volunteers (myself included) and it was by a magnitude of something ridiculous by a hundred thousand too many volunteers. Training would have been an issue but not insurmountable if the need was there.

I agree people got spooked early in, the media has a lot of blame on its shoulders for pushing out mass hyperbole.

As per the point above, comparing it to a bad flu season fair enough I could understand your position, but most are comparing it to an influenza pandemic these are two different things - but I covered the in a previous post (which I wrote while you were posting your own reply by the look of it)

My understanding of the Nightingale hospitals was not to treat the worst of the covid cases, but for patients who are leaving intensive care to be monitored before returning home. They wouldn't need as many highly trained staff to administer treatment as such, only lower grade staff to monitor, do observations and provide personal care to the patient before being discharged.

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

So you agree with both mine and Skidem's point on the other thread that Blemmy's talk of 'end of mankind' is massive hyperbole then?

In all seriousness, this is a good example of why people on the other side of the table to you can get frustrated.

Trying to put forward a reasoned argument to counter a position which ranges from Blemmy's view that this is an extinction-level event to your own position, which sounds to me a bit more balanced and takes into account the "potential" strain that the treatment and implementation of therapeutic for non-fatal cases of Covid would have on the NHS will have, is nigh on impossible.

The gulf in reasoning between those two points is just so massive it is almost impossible to hold a reasonable discussion about it, all the while having to have our position constantly, yet subtly undermined by throwaway terms like a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxers. And to be clear it's not that these terms are offensive in any way, but they have subtle yet powerful influence in diminishing the authority of an opposing voice. (in fact the term conspiracy theorist was coined to achieve exactly this effect by the CIA - there's a tin foil hat fact for you )

The arguments for the lockdowns and now the vaccine have been built on shifting sands starting with just two weeks to flatten the curve through to this now ludicrous position of the end of life on Earth as we know it for a virus with a 99.4% survival rate.

Your position here Bluebina, i.e. protecting the NHS is perhaps the most valid argument to be put forward, yet if we pull this down to a question of economics, which at the most fundamental level is what is required to support the NHS, then a very different path could have been taken, to protect the most vulnerable, and funnel funds into specialist care units for those susceptible to severe COVID symptoms. The loss of opportunity costs alone by closing the economy down twice now could have easily provided ample funds for medical coverage and facilities before we even get into the sheer cost of furlough schemes and CBILs.

That is a sensible conversation that can be had, I'm sure you probably have a counterpoint to it, and as with previous discussions, we may be able to find some middle ground, or at least leave a conversation having respected each other's views and taken something new into consideration.

But currently, such actual proper conversations are getting lost in the massive mix of positions coming from those who are pro-vaccine and prepared to casually dismiss the importance of individual autonomy and liberty.

Everyone who is pro-vaccine/anti-liberty (see what I did there) is claiming to be on the same page - as shown by all the mutual backslapping on the other thread - which is fine, I'm all for civility

But you're presenting a united front on the one hand here, talking to those of us who are probably a bit to dim to keep up with all you big brains that have worked out why the vaccine is needed. However, the reality is your all so far apart in what you think the actual clear and present danger is of COVID, it is hard to have such discussions in any meaningful or productive way.

This is intended as more of an observation than a pop at anyone in particular just an observation more than anything else

My stance will always be pro-vaccine, as I have faith in medical professionals.

I am against lockdowns in principle and appreciate measures are needed, but make them as low tiered as possible.

I can't answer the mess of the NHS, I don't think they have handled it well at all, I thought they could have put all covid in the nightingale hospitals and kept the other for standard patients. It looks to me like they could get the hospitals built and equipped but couldn't drum up any more staff to run them.

I think the reports from Italy showing patients dying in corridors caused panic, they could hardly get enough staff in to cover the existing wards let alone extra, there has been an unbelievable amount of sickness and self-isolating.

The first wave was handled terribly with the lack or testing capability and PPI early on.

It's not an apocalyptic situation, but any comparisons to a bad flu year are an absolute joke, and if we let rip even now the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope.

I appreciate the way you respond to posts, directly, it shows a considered approach.

The point on the hospitals - i seem to recall the NHS were turning away volunteers (myself included) and it was by a magnitude of something ridiculous by a hundred thousand too many volunteers. Training would have been an issue but not insurmountable if the need was there.

I agree people got spooked early in, the media has a lot of blame on its shoulders for pushing out mass hyperbole.

As per the point above, comparing it to a bad flu season fair enough I could understand your position, but most are comparing it to an influenza pandemic these are two different things - but I covered the in a previous post (which I wrote while you were posting your own reply by the look of it)

My understanding of the Nightingale hospitals was not to treat the worst of the covid cases, but for patients who are leaving intensive care to be monitored before returning home. They wouldn't need as many highly trained staff to administer treatment as such, only lower grade staff to monitor, do observations and provide personal care to the patient before being discharged.

Basically your right but someone got it drastically wrong as out of 500+ beds only 34 was ever used in nightingale hospitals there was sufficient staff to run a percentage of the beds ! Now spent £33m on 400 beds in temp building at uhw for same reason now if only 34 beds was used in millennium stadium why the fck are they going to need 400 beds when pandemic wont be as bad as original outbreak? Thats only 200 short of uhw capacity itself! Deaths from delayed treatment diagnosis will be horrendous.... this bollocks of putting in x amount to clear backlog is pie in sky as you can put in 100m and still wont matter as need the staff and beds to facilitate operations considering hospitals run at something like 70/80% capacity or more where are the beds to fit in backlog of 50k+ patients more by next year? They reckon 5yrs to sort it out and that is being optimistic.

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

Always the same well said

correct...dont like the facts and figures = must be a conspiracy and nukes has now placed cohorts in the office of national statistics to fiddle the numbers....
and yes..it is always the same no matter what countries stats you look at.... strangely enough the truth remains the truth..

Really, just what is the point in quoting past figures this last year has never been seen before in my lifetime or yours latest figures can be read in many different ways. No its people reading the news feeds and a lot of what they are reading is fake news, then they have a bee in their bonnet and harp on about it. People should use their own common sense and experience, and make their own decisions on Covid19.

And you've clearly let our government make your mind up. The same one that's been constantly lying and killing thousands of people in the middle east for years surely can't be capable of manipulating us.

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

Always the same well said

correct...dont like the facts and figures = must be a conspiracy and nukes has now placed cohorts in the office of national statistics to fiddle the numbers....
and yes..it is always the same no matter what countries stats you look at.... strangely enough the truth remains the truth..

Really, just what is the point in quoting past figures this last year has never been seen before in my lifetime or yours latest figures can be read in many different ways. No its people reading the news feeds and a lot of what they are reading is fake news, then they have a bee in their bonnet and harp on about it. People should use their own common sense and experience, and make their own decisions on Covid19.

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

as for the news./ government briefings etc... its nice when things are level, honest and given perspective... a few examples... our government reduced covid deaths by over 5,300 at one point after it was pointed out to them that the way they were counting meant once you had a positive test youd be a covid death no matter what you died of and no matter how much time had passed.... they then put a time limit of 28 days on it but did not change the criteria for having covid on the DC.... the original means of counting ? was said it was to not under estimate... a BBC news article of a coffin maker in March whose orders were now 5 thousand per cent increased { no mention that he had just had the contract for the county } ...and umpteen graphs none of which would get you a pass at GCSE... no..when the scale is 1 to 100,00 ..you can not condense to just the bottom bit 1 to 50 with a line reaching the very top and pretend thats giving a true picture...

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

No I think you probably had a lemsip, you can't compare flu to Covid, yes it's nasty and I would choose to avoid it, but it kills less, and doesn't spread anywhere near as quickly!

Once covid is cracked they will carry on letting us catch flu while vaccinating the over 65's, because it's not in the same league.

yes mate i had a lemsip

its been in so many threads your either doubling and trebling down on something youve looked into, realised your wrong but can not bring yourself to admit it.... or your determined to not even check it out so stick your head in the sand....
just saying flu is fck all , 2 lemsips sorts it followed by a bang head emoji doesnt really cut it , or make history change my friend...

This board is so funny.

Cant believe we are still debating a post that has the wrong figures.

The world just loves a salacious story even if it is based on untruths.

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

Always the same well said

correct...dont like the facts and figures = must be a conspiracy and nukes has now placed cohorts in the office of national statistics to fiddle the numbers....
and yes..it is always the same no matter what countries stats you look at.... strangely enough the truth remains the truth..

Really, just what is the point in quoting past figures this last year has never been seen before in my lifetime or yours latest figures can be read in many different ways. No its people reading the news feeds and a lot of what they are reading is fake news, then they have a bee in their bonnet and harp on about it. People should use their own common sense and experience, and make their own decisions on Covid19.

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

as for the news./ government briefings etc... its nice when things are level, honest and given perspective... a few examples... our government reduced covid deaths by over 5,300 at one point after it was pointed out to them that the way they were counting meant once you had a positive test youd be a covid death no matter what you died of and no matter how much time had passed.... they then put a time limit of 28 days on it but did not change the criteria for having covid on the DC.... the original means of counting ? was said it was to not under estimate... a BBC news article of a coffin maker in March whose orders were now 5 thousand per cent increased { no mention that he had just had the contract for the county } ...and umpteen graphs none of which would get you a pass at GCSE... no..when the scale is 1 to 100,00 ..you can not condense to just the bottom bit 1 to 50 with a line reaching the very top and pretend thats giving a true picture...

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

No I think you probably had a lemsip, you can't compare flu to Covid, yes it's nasty and I would choose to avoid it, but it kills less, and doesn't spread anywhere near as quickly!

Once covid is cracked they will carry on letting us catch flu while vaccinating the over 65's, because it's not in the same league.

yes mate i had a lemsip

its been in so many threads your either doubling and trebling down on something youve looked into, realised your wrong but can not bring yourself to admit it.... or your determined to not even check it out so stick your head in the sand....
just saying flu is fck all , 2 lemsips sorts it followed by a bang head emoji doesnt really cut it , or make history change my friend...

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

But he's not and that is the whole point your missing here I'm afraid.

He is comparing the influenza pandemic of 1967/68 which killed a million people when the world had a population of about 3 and a half billion people (so 0.03% of the population) to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 which has killed 1.4 million people when the world has a population of about 7 and a half billion people (so 0.02% of the population)

1967 wasn't a bad flu year for seasonal flu, it was an influenza pandemic - the result of the emergence of a different strain of influenza. Just like COVID19 is a different strain of coronavirus to the common cold.

The comparison is 100% valid.

You are arguing that an influenza pandemic (of which there have been 5 in the last 140 odd years) is the same as seasonal flu because they are both influenza viruses.

The logic of that argument, that you keep sticking to, is that COVID19 is the same as the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

Just take a moment to read about influenza pandemics here (from a website called the history of vaccines so I'm sure you'll like it )

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... -pandemics

This will give you a better understanding of what Skidemin (and me) are trying to explain.

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

Always the same well said

correct...dont like the facts and figures = must be a conspiracy and nukes has now placed cohorts in the office of national statistics to fiddle the numbers....
and yes..it is always the same no matter what countries stats you look at.... strangely enough the truth remains the truth..

Really, just what is the point in quoting past figures this last year has never been seen before in my lifetime or yours latest figures can be read in many different ways. No its people reading the news feeds and a lot of what they are reading is fake news, then they have a bee in their bonnet and harp on about it. People should use their own common sense and experience, and make their own decisions on Covid19.

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

as for the news./ government briefings etc... its nice when things are level, honest and given perspective... a few examples... our government reduced covid deaths by over 5,300 at one point after it was pointed out to them that the way they were counting meant once you had a positive test youd be a covid death no matter what you died of and no matter how much time had passed.... they then put a time limit of 28 days on it but did not change the criteria for having covid on the DC.... the original means of counting ? was said it was to not under estimate... a BBC news article of a coffin maker in March whose orders were now 5 thousand per cent increased { no mention that he had just had the contract for the county } ...and umpteen graphs none of which would get you a pass at GCSE... no..when the scale is 1 to 100,00 ..you can not condense to just the bottom bit 1 to 50 with a line reaching the very top and pretend thats giving a true picture...

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

No I think you probably had a lemsip, you can't compare flu to Covid, yes it's nasty and I would choose to avoid it, but it kills less, and doesn't spread anywhere near as quickly!

Once covid is cracked they will carry on letting us catch flu while vaccinating the over 65's, because it's not in the same league.

yes mate i had a lemsip

its been in so many threads your either doubling and trebling down on something youve looked into, realised your wrong but can not bring yourself to admit it.... or your determined to not even check it out so stick your head in the sand....
just saying flu is fck all , 2 lemsips sorts it followed by a bang head emoji doesnt really cut it , or make history change my friend...

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

NONSENSE ? as in we havent had very deadly flu epidemics. ?

i dont believe you havent checked.... just dont want to admit it...

This is the official ONS death rates and as you can see the rates this year have been the same or even under or two months over.
But in other official statistics Influenza deaths has dropped significantly. Can anyone say why ?
In a true pandemic the death rates this year would have sky rocketed would you not agree ? Anyhow I don’t know if anyone has noticed but they no longer say daily Covid death rates ? They now refer to it as daily Covid RELATED deaths or even those that have died WITH Covid.
Yes it’s a very Nasty bug but we get nasty dugs/Virus all the time it’s life.

BD97244C-E0F8-4490-B51F-F7F6B66C7659.jpeg

All virus transmissions including the common cold and flu have reduced because people are distancing, washing their hands, and can't go anywhere indoors without drastic measures because of the covid 19 pandemic.

If it were a normal year with everything fully open and no education regarding handwashing etc the figures would be through the roof?

How can anyone not understand this and quote previous years figures as an actual comparison?

Come off it all this conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, the measures are in place to allow the NHS to cope

Always the same well said

correct...dont like the facts and figures = must be a conspiracy and nukes has now placed cohorts in the office of national statistics to fiddle the numbers....
and yes..it is always the same no matter what countries stats you look at.... strangely enough the truth remains the truth..

Really, just what is the point in quoting past figures this last year has never been seen before in my lifetime or yours latest figures can be read in many different ways. No its people reading the news feeds and a lot of what they are reading is fake news, then they have a bee in their bonnet and harp on about it. People should use their own common sense and experience, and make their own decisions on Covid19.

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

as for the news./ government briefings etc... its nice when things are level, honest and given perspective... a few examples... our government reduced covid deaths by over 5,300 at one point after it was pointed out to them that the way they were counting meant once you had a positive test youd be a covid death no matter what you died of and no matter how much time had passed.... they then put a time limit of 28 days on it but did not change the criteria for having covid on the DC.... the original means of counting ? was said it was to not under estimate... a BBC news article of a coffin maker in March whose orders were now 5 thousand per cent increased { no mention that he had just had the contract for the county } ...and umpteen graphs none of which would get you a pass at GCSE... no..when the scale is 1 to 100,00 ..you can not condense to just the bottom bit 1 to 50 with a line reaching the very top and pretend thats giving a true picture...

i think maybe you should have a look at 1968.... no i didnt miss school, wear a mask or have nutters threatening my freedom of choice over a corners cut vaccine either....maybe it didnt happen in conspiracy theory world just the real world ? but we lived/ worked / played through it...

No I think you probably had a lemsip, you can't compare flu to Covid, yes it's nasty and I would choose to avoid it, but it kills less, and doesn't spread anywhere near as quickly!

Once covid is cracked they will carry on letting us catch flu while vaccinating the over 65's, because it's not in the same league.

yes mate i had a lemsip

its been in so many threads your either doubling and trebling down on something youve looked into, realised your wrong but can not bring yourself to admit it.... or your determined to not even check it out so stick your head in the sand....
just saying flu is fck all , 2 lemsips sorts it followed by a bang head emoji doesnt really cut it , or make history change my friend...

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

NONSENSE ? as in we havent had very deadly flu epidemics. ?

i dont believe you havent checked.... just dont want to admit it...

At end day can question the methodology of counting deaths but what is beyond question is fact they count covid deaths as someone who as been tested positive with covid or have covid symptoms but they are in the total for covid deaths! So the question is why say died with covid and then count that death as covid death when could have died of something else like cancer? That is exaggerating covid deaths it's that simple but why??.

More sheep about on here than on the Brecon Beacons lol

https://fullfact.org/health/mail-deaths-chart/

https://fullfact.org/health/mail-deaths-chart/

Other than the expected spike in April the adjusted figures in the fact checking article (which is what the lonely little link with no description above is if anyone was wondering - very lazy posting Blue Lagoon ) still show 2020 figures consistently dipping below the national average on many occasions, with a very slight rise above it again currently.

The data is literally there on there own graph that shows that other than the April spike 2020 has been in line with other years.

The latter spike we are seeing now could just as easily be magnified by the increased suicide this year as it is Covid, certainly Covid won't be the only factor and the trend is only slightly above normal for the last few weeks.

That is all based on the fact checkers data, yet they omit all of this interpretation. I hate these fact checking sites. They always claim to be impartial yet invariably push an agenda one way or another.

Something I found interesting was the average life expectancy in the UK is 81.16 years, whilst the average age of death due to Covid is 83.

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

But he's not and that is the whole point your missing here I'm afraid.

He is comparing the influenza pandemic of 1967/68 which killed a million people when the world had a population of about 3 and a half billion people (so 0.03% of the population) to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 which has killed 1.4 million people when the world has a population of about 7 and a half billion people (so 0.02% of the population)

1967 wasn't a bad flu year for seasonal flu, it was an influenza pandemic - the result of the emergence of a different strain of influenza. Just like COVID19 is a different strain of coronavirus to the common cold.

The comparison is 100% valid.

You are arguing that an influenza pandemic (of which there have been 5 in the last 140 odd years) is the same as seasonal flu because they are both influenza viruses.

The logic of that argument, that you keep sticking to, is that COVID19 is the same as the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

Just take a moment to read about influenza pandemics here (from a website called the history of vaccines so I'm sure you'll like it )

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... -pandemics

This will give you a better understanding of what Skidemin (and me) are trying to explain.

Good reply as ever

Skideman has previously said it's no worse than flu, so there is an ongoing difference of opinion, so I didn't really read his post.

With regards 1968 flu pandemic, assuming your info is accurate and not from an anti measures propaganda site, it still shows that with no measures at all, miners all together eating their sandwiches in the mine, then all in the pub after work, then all in and out of each other's houses, and through the whole pandemic, many fewer deaths, and a slight increase in the overall population percentage. Hospitals wouldn't have been able to save as many people, don't forget we have had the extra 52 years of medical advancement.

Compare that to Covid -19 where the whole world has been locked down, people aren't mixing, social distancing, hand washing, hand sanitisers everywhere, people wearing masks, flights, cinemas, theatres, sporting events (for fans) cancelled and every other change in our lives possible.

Only 10% of the population have had it due to all these measures, so I conclude that if we had ignored it, as we did in 1968, as stated by Skideman, we would have had 7 or 8 times the death toll probably more because the health service would not have had enough beds.

So even in a terrible year like 1968, it bears no comparison.

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

But he's not and that is the whole point your missing here I'm afraid.

He is comparing the influenza pandemic of 1967/68 which killed a million people when the world had a population of about 3 and a half billion people (so 0.03% of the population) to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 which has killed 1.4 million people when the world has a population of about 7 and a half billion people (so 0.02% of the population)

1967 wasn't a bad flu year for seasonal flu, it was an influenza pandemic - the result of the emergence of a different strain of influenza. Just like COVID19 is a different strain of coronavirus to the common cold.

The comparison is 100% valid.

You are arguing that an influenza pandemic (of which there have been 5 in the last 140 odd years) is the same as seasonal flu because they are both influenza viruses.

The logic of that argument, that you keep sticking to, is that COVID19 is the same as the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

Just take a moment to read about influenza pandemics here (from a website called the history of vaccines so I'm sure you'll like it )

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... -pandemics

This will give you a better understanding of what Skidemin (and me) are trying to explain.

Good reply as ever

Skideman has previously said it's no worse than flu, so there is an ongoing difference of opinion, so I didn't really read his post.

With regards 1968 flu pandemic, assuming your info is accurate and not from an anti measures propaganda site, it still shows that with no measures at all, miners all together eating their sandwiches in the mine, then all in the pub after work, then all in and out of each other's houses, and through the whole pandemic, many fewer deaths, and a slight increase in the overall population percentage. Hospitals wouldn't have been able to save as many people, don't forget we have had the extra 52 years of medical advancement.

Compare that to Covid -19 where the whole world has been locked down, people aren't mixing, social distancing, hand washing, hand sanitisers everywhere, people wearing masks, flights, cinemas, theatres, sporting events (for fans) cancelled and every other change in our lives possible.

Only 10% of the population have had it due to all these measures, so I conclude that if we had ignored it, as we did in 1968, as stated by Skideman, we would have had 7 or 8 times the death toll probably more because the health service would not have had enough beds.

So even in a terrible year like 1968, it bears no comparison.

This isn't totally accurate. Findings from both Spanish influenza and the Black plague found that lockdown actually increased infection rates, not decreased. The reason for this is because viruses thrive indoors, in closed spaces.

In the initial weeks of a pandemic, lockdowns can be useful to slow the spread but after this period of time they're ineffective. We've been locked down since March to some extent, and infection rates continue to rise.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Locking down society is not the answer. We can debate all day long about the seriousness of this virus but keeping everybody locked indoors does not benefit the wider population. Protect those at risk, allow the rest of us to continue with our lives, keep the economy going.

We are destroying the economy, destroying mental health, having excess deaths for cancers, dementia and more. I cannot imagine the damage it is doing to children. If we are healthy, we do not need protection and the survival rate of 99% suggests that.

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

But he's not and that is the whole point your missing here I'm afraid.

He is comparing the influenza pandemic of 1967/68 which killed a million people when the world had a population of about 3 and a half billion people (so 0.03% of the population) to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 which has killed 1.4 million people when the world has a population of about 7 and a half billion people (so 0.02% of the population)

1967 wasn't a bad flu year for seasonal flu, it was an influenza pandemic - the result of the emergence of a different strain of influenza. Just like COVID19 is a different strain of coronavirus to the common cold.

The comparison is 100% valid.

You are arguing that an influenza pandemic (of which there have been 5 in the last 140 odd years) is the same as seasonal flu because they are both influenza viruses.

The logic of that argument, that you keep sticking to, is that COVID19 is the same as the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

Just take a moment to read about influenza pandemics here (from a website called the history of vaccines so I'm sure you'll like it )

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... -pandemics

This will give you a better understanding of what Skidemin (and me) are trying to explain.

Good reply as ever

Skideman has previously said it's no worse than flu, so there is an ongoing difference of opinion, so I didn't really read his post.

With regards 1968 flu pandemic, assuming your info is accurate and not from an anti measures propaganda site, it still shows that with no measures at all, miners all together eating their sandwiches in the mine, then all in the pub after work, then all in and out of each other's houses, and through the whole pandemic, many fewer deaths, and a slight increase in the overall population percentage. Hospitals wouldn't have been able to save as many people, don't forget we have had the extra 52 years of medical advancement.

Compare that to Covid -19 where the whole world has been locked down, people aren't mixing, social distancing, hand washing, hand sanitisers everywhere, people wearing masks, flights, cinemas, theatres, sporting events (for fans) cancelled and every other change in our lives possible.

Only 10% of the population have had it due to all these measures, so I conclude that if we had ignored it, as we did in 1968, as stated by Skideman, we would have had 7 or 8 times the death toll probably more because the health service would not have had enough beds.

So even in a terrible year like 1968, it bears no comparison.

This isn't totally accurate. Findings from both Spanish influenza and the Black plague found that lockdown actually increased infection rates, not decreased. The reason for this is because viruses thrive indoors, in closed spaces.

In the initial weeks of a pandemic, lockdowns can be useful to slow the spread but after this period of time they're ineffective. We've been locked down since March to some extent, and infection rates continue to rise.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Locking down society is not the answer. We can debate all day long about the seriousness of this virus but keeping everybody locked indoors does not benefit the wider population. Protect those at risk, allow the rest of us to continue with our lives, keep the economy going.

We are destroying the economy, destroying mental health, having excess deaths for cancers, dementia and more. I cannot imagine the damage it is doing to children. If we are healthy, we do not need protection and the survival rate of 99% suggests that.

The point I was making was not pro lockdown, but the measures we have taken mean that transmission rates have been drastically reduced and don't compare to 1968, when everyone went to school, work, the pub, football without distancing,
without measures the virus would have gone through the roof!

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

Sweden has had a total of 6,681 deaths, half of which have been in care homes. On the flip side they haven't seen the increase in excess deaths relating to suicides, cancer related deaths, dementia, like the rest of Europe and the world. The effects lock down will have on children is still yet to be seen, but I imagine it will be significant.

The Swedish economy would shrink when the whole world stops economic activity, it would be hard not to be hit. But they haven't gone at it with a sledge hammer. Spains economy shrunk by 18%, France by 13%, Spain by 12%, the UK by 20%.

Here are Swedens yearly death rates.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

Sweden has had a total of 6,681 deaths, half of which have been in care homes. On the flip side they haven't seen the increase in excess deaths relating to suicides, cancer related deaths, dementia, like the rest of Europe and the world. The effects lock down will have on children is still yet to be seen, but I imagine it will be significant.

The Swedish economy would shrink when the whole world stops economic activity, it would be hard not to be hit. But they haven't gone at it with a sledge hammer. Spains economy shrunk by 18%, France by 13%, Spain by 12%, the UK by 20%.

The Uk's economy had a maximum fall of 20%. From January until the 2nd week of November the economy is down 7.5%.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

Sweden has had a total of 6,681 deaths, half of which have been in care homes. On the flip side they haven't seen the increase in excess deaths relating to suicides, cancer related deaths, dementia, like the rest of Europe and the world. The effects lock down will have on children is still yet to be seen, but I imagine it will be significant.

The Swedish economy would shrink when the whole world stops economic activity, it would be hard not to be hit. But they haven't gone at it with a sledge hammer. Spains economy shrunk by 18%, France by 13%, Spain by 12%, the UK by 20%.

The Uk's economy had a maximum fall of 20%. From January until the 2nd week of November the economy is down 7.5%.

I stand corrected, although Sunak is now saying GDP will shrink by around 11% for 2020.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

I'd guess that population density is a factor being overlooked in nordic comparisons.

Sweden I'd imaging has a much higher population density because it has Stockholm, Malmo and Gothenburg, while Norway only really has one major city of note (Oslo) and same for Finland (Helsinki)

I'm not saying that as a definite, but would guess that would also have to be weighted into any comparison?

Here are Swedens yearly death rates.

That's total yearly deaths. The data from 2010-2019 is from January 1st until December 31st whereas the 2020 data runs from January 1st until November 13th. Your data is missing the last 7 weeks of this year.

In fact if we use the rough average of ~91,000 deaths a year giving us ~250 deaths a day with the 49 days left in the year from that date Sweden would expect to see another ~12.5k deaths between Nov 13th and Dec 31st which would leave them with 5k more deaths than 2019, the highest death toll of the past 11 years.

This is also if you assume Sweden has an exact average death rate across the year and their deaths don't see a slight increase in winter months which happens across most of Europe.

You are trying to say a bad flu year is comparable to this virus, and of course, you are talking nonsense!

I have trivialised my reply, because it's not comparable!

But he's not and that is the whole point your missing here I'm afraid.

He is comparing the influenza pandemic of 1967/68 which killed a million people when the world had a population of about 3 and a half billion people (so 0.03% of the population) to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 which has killed 1.4 million people when the world has a population of about 7 and a half billion people (so 0.02% of the population)

1967 wasn't a bad flu year for seasonal flu, it was an influenza pandemic - the result of the emergence of a different strain of influenza. Just like COVID19 is a different strain of coronavirus to the common cold.

The comparison is 100% valid.

You are arguing that an influenza pandemic (of which there have been 5 in the last 140 odd years) is the same as seasonal flu because they are both influenza viruses.

The logic of that argument, that you keep sticking to, is that COVID19 is the same as the common cold because they are both coronaviruses.

Just take a moment to read about influenza pandemics here (from a website called the history of vaccines so I'm sure you'll like it )

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conte ... -pandemics

This will give you a better understanding of what Skidemin (and me) are trying to explain.

Good reply as ever

Skideman has previously said it's no worse than flu, so there is an ongoing difference of opinion, so I didn't really read his post.

With regards 1968 flu pandemic, assuming your info is accurate and not from an anti measures propaganda site, it still shows that with no measures at all, miners all together eating their sandwiches in the mine, then all in the pub after work, then all in and out of each other's houses, and through the whole pandemic, many fewer deaths, and a slight increase in the overall population percentage. Hospitals wouldn't have been able to save as many people, don't forget we have had the extra 52 years of medical advancement.

Compare that to Covid -19 where the whole world has been locked down, people aren't mixing, social distancing, hand washing, hand sanitisers everywhere, people wearing masks, flights, cinemas, theatres, sporting events (for fans) cancelled and every other change in our lives possible.

Only 10% of the population have had it due to all these measures, so I conclude that if we had ignored it, as we did in 1968, as stated by Skideman, we would have had 7 or 8 times the death toll probably more because the health service would not have had enough beds.

So even in a terrible year like 1968, it bears no comparison.

Bear in mind you are factoring in the impact of lockdowns, which is fair enough, I did the same in my post as well.

However, you are not factoring in the impact of the fact that in 2020 global travel is far, far more common than it was in 1968 and that would have equally have been a massive factor in the transmission of the virus in the early phase of the pandemic, when it was at its most virulent before we locked down borders.

As I said before, impossible to tell which how much each would swing the impact, but both have to be considered and the effect of one is likely to mitigate the impact of the other, whichever way round, so we can't ignore one and acknowledge the other.

You just need to look at Sweden. They continued life as normal, but introduced some light social distancing measures. Infection rates have dipped, then increased again but the death rate has held fairly steadily since July, with a recent spike.

Here's a look at Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.

Population
Sweden - 10.2m
Norway - 5.3m
Finland - 5.5m

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

Total Cases
Sweden - 243k
Norway - 34k
Finland - 24k

Total Deaths
Sweden - 6,681
Norway - 316
Finland - 384

So deaths are 22x higher than Norway and 17x higher than Finland (11x and 8.5x when adjusted for population differences).
Cases are 7.6x higher than Norway and 10x higher than Finland (3.8x and 5x when adjusted for population differences).

The death rate you claim has held steady is still the 6th highest in all of Europe (Not just the EU). Just because it's remained steady doesn't mean it's a sign they've combatted the virus effectively.

Sweden's economy, whilst not as bad as here, has also taken a hit. Since January 2020 the UK's economy has shrunk by about 7.5% in total, Sweden's has shrunk by around 3.8% in total. Up to June (Q1 and Q2) the average across the EU was a 11.9% decrease whilst Sweden had a 8.6% decrease.

I'd guess that population density is a factor being overlooked in nordic comparisons.

Sweden I'd imaging has a much higher population density because it has Stockholm, Malmo and Gothenburg, while Norway only really has one major city of note (Oslo) and same for Finland (Helsinki)

I'm not saying that as a definite, but would guess that would also have to be weighted into any comparison?

These are the population densities of the 3 per square km using 2018 data:
Sweden - 22
Norway - 17
Finland - 16

And their rank in Europe for Population Density:
Sweden - 41st
Norway - 42nd
Finland - 43rd

Only Iceland with a population density of 3 people per square kilometre is lower ranking 44th out of 44.

Here are Swedens yearly death rates.

That's total yearly deaths. The data from 2010-2019 is from January 1st until December 31st whereas the 2020 data runs from January 1st until November 13th. Your data is missing the last 7 weeks of this year.

In fact if we use the rough average of ~91,000 deaths a year giving us ~250 deaths a day with the 49 days left in the year from that date Sweden would expect to see another ~12.5k deaths between Nov 13th and Dec 31st which would leave them with 5k more deaths than 2019, the highest death toll of the past 11 years.

This is also if you assume Sweden has an exact average death rate across the year and their deaths don't see a slight increase in winter months which happens across most of Europe.

In this scenario Sweden sees an estimated 5% increase in deaths from the year before. I think the UK is looking at an estimated 15-20% increase.

Sweden will also have protected those suffering from other illnesses, maintained the mental wellbeing of their population, as well as having a stronger economy than neighbouring countries. In terms of the bigger picture, I prefer their approach personally.